The topic for the day was – Agile in the P3 environment: reviewing the key features of Agile development and examining whether they can be usefully extended, applied or find parallels in project, programme and portfolio management

The topic for the 35th meeting of CITI’s centres of excellence club (CofEe) was – Agile in the P3 environment: reviewing the key features of Agile development and examining whether they can be usefully extended, applied or find parallels in project, programme and portfolio management.

The day began with an introduction from our host Ian Santry, Head of programme management, best practice and capability at the Home Office. This was followed by some questions from Nick Dobson to stimulate thinking and discussion around whether Agile has real merit in project, programme or portfolio management.

Our first presentation was delivered by Derek Homer, Agile Delivery Manager from Bookatable.Com. Derek has drawn from his extensive experience in Agile product development at Workshare, Nokia and BBC. The main message from Derek’s presentation was that we should not confuse Agile with a project management methodology; it is rather a product development methodology. Whereas Agile provides a mindset that may be suitable for delivering products in some contexts, it does not work well as an approach for managing a project.

The second presentation was from Natalie Jones, Head of Projects at the Home Office. Natalie outlined how Agile was used successfully as a new methodology for software development within the Immigration Platform Technologies Programme. Natalie highlighted the particular challenges of changing the mindsets not only of management but equally of the product managers and software developers. Natalie concluded that although Agile does not come free of challenges, she sees no turning back to other methodologies for product development.

The third presentation was from Phil Bradbury from Transport for London (TfL). Phil outlined how Agile is used within the project management environment at TfL. An important message that emerged from Phil’s experience with agile is that governance in the product development environment should mirror the philosophy underpinning Agile. Phil also emphasised the critical need for changing the mindsets of people working in Agile environments.

Members then were invited to participate in a workshop where they discussed one of four themes:

• Agile experiences in the workplace
• When is it appropriate to use Agile in a project?
• What are the costs and risks of Agile?
• Guidelines for running Agile projects within portfolios and programmes.

During lunch, members were also invited to participate in two surveys. The results of these surveys together with all presentation slides and workshop out puts are available to members at the usual web-site.

Please note: membership of the club is only gained once you have attended a meeting.

Thank you to our guest speakers, all members and a special thank you to our host Ian Santry who helped ensure the day was a great success.

Survey results

Survey one – Measuring progress

Survey one attempted to establish the differences in reporting metrics between Agile and conventional projects. Members were invited to identify which metrics they used to monitor progress in both Agile and non-Agile project environments. The response was equivocal; both types of project make a practically identical use of metrics. The only exception was where metrics were specific to, and could therefore only be used in, an Agile environment (e.g. ‘business value assigned to stories’ and ‘sprint backlog completion rates’).

This seems to imply that there is little differentiation of reporting of progress between different techniques and traditional metrics can be applied to Agile product development.

Survey two – How have organisational frameworks been adapted to accommodate Agile?

This survey was aimed at assessing what proportion of change delivery projects were being run through Agile and, as the same time, the extent to which the governance and structuring mechanisms were altered to accommodate Agile approaches.

A minority of all the projects represented were delivered with the application of Agile approaches and in the majority of instances where projects were being delivered through Agile approaches no changes had been made in project governance structures or monitoring to accommodate this. This is somewhat interesting in that it could either suggest low-levels of maturity in the thinking about the roles of governance structures and monitoring in project delivery; alternatively it could point out an implicit recognition that we don’t need to change project governance structures to accommodate the subordinate Agile product development lifecycles.

Workshop sessions

Four workshops were set to frame discussions between club members. Groups were self directed and generated flipchart output which was summarised in plenary session. The themes and outputs generated are summarised below.

Workshop 1: Agile experiences in the workplace
The first workshop asked members to draw on their Agile experiences in the workplace identifying success stories and cautionary tales on the levels of: (i) product development; (ii) projects; (iii) programmes; and (iv) portfolios.

Most of the success stories arose within the product development and projects environments whilst the cautionary tales surfaced in the attempts to apply Agile approaches in portfolios and programmes.

Success stories in using agile revolved around:

• Incremental product development: Agile allows product managers to start small and incrementally build on success (success brings success)
• Engagement: Agile helps in engaging users and in setting expectations early

Cautionary tales highlighted challenges around:

• Value: Agile is not a panacea for all type of projects and for all type of change
• Skills shortages: difficulties in finding contract resources, while training of existing resources is not easy
• Governance: difficulties in establishing governance structures appropriate to the challenges of applying Agile approaches in complex management environments.

Workshop 2: When is it appropriate to use Agile in a project?

The second workshop asked members to identify when it is appropriate to use Agile in a project.

Emerging concepts from this workshop included:

• Clarity of requirements; members identified that Agile may be useful when projects are building new products or when requirements are ambiguous or fluid
• Type of project: while Agile can be particularly suitable in IT projects, members found the usefulness of Agile in, for example, transformation of people’s behaviour is highly dubious
• Team location: members emphasised that co-location of Agile team is preferable, although not essential. The observation being that it was less effective with geographically dispersed teams
• Project constraints: members emphasised that Agile is not appropriate in fixed cost projects for instance. Although it is possible to cost constrain Agile approaches by pre-determining and establishing the funding of a given number of sprints.

Workshop 3: What are the costs and risks of Agile?

The third workshop challenged members to discuss what costs and risks are associated with Agile.

Emerging concepts from this workshop covered:

Concepts around cost of Agile:

• Agile is perceived to be quicker and cheaper.
• Whereas, conventional methodologies (e.g. waterfall) can have hidden costs (e.g. user engagement), Agile makes this explicit. The need to back-fill users’ roles whilst they are engaged in scrum activities can be significant

• Becoming too obsessed with the methodology (madness of methodology) as some organisations now go Agile as the ‘default setting’
• Fragility: members emphasised that some organisations claim to be doing Agile but not really doing it!
• Product owner: there was also recognition among members of the additional risk associated with the quality of the ‘product owner’, who is key in Agile development
• Co-location: members also highlighted difficulties with running off-shore or remote working Agile development
• Business context: the predominant risk identified was that the technologists and users may take control of the deliverables and their development in isolation of the business context, purposes and objectives; that is to say they could usurp the role of governance and project management

Members stressed additional points around the value from Agile, which are discussed below as part of ‘interesting observations and questions’.

Workshop 4: Guidelines for running Agile projects within portfolios & programmes

The fourth workshop asked members to discuss guidelines for running Agile projects within portfolios and programmes.

An interesting observation is that both teams who participated in this workshop went back to basics by questioning ‘what is Agile’ in the first place? Members stressed that even now ‘we are not clear on what Agile means’; there was clearly an apprehension that Agile as a formalised product development lifecycle is often confused with a more general management ambition to be agile (i.e. flexible and quick) in performance. In short that Agile is very close to being a ‘buzz-word’.

Some members suggested that Agile is ‘a way to manage uncertainty’ at the level of projects and programmes and that it might be applicable for use in prioritising projects within a portfolio; however concrete examples or a clear explanation of how this might occur were not forthcoming.

Emerging guidelines for running Agile projects from this workshop:

• Choose the right people (best people!)
• Communication within teams and with the business is key
• Define clear roles and responsibilities (determine RACI up front)
• Be clear on what you want, then measure it!

The energy and participation in all the work groups was high with individuals freely exchanging views and opinions.

Some ‘interesting observations and questions’ emerged from the deliberations of the afternoon which can be summarised as:

1. Culturally Agile is ‘mandating’ user involvement, but shouldn’t this be the case in all well-run projects as Pinto and Slevin have been telling us since the 1980s?
2. Culturally Agile accommodates the mindset that some products may ‘not succeed’ and it structures for ‘fail fast’, but shouldn’t this be the mindset in all projects? Projects are, after all, speculative investments.
3. Isn’t it essential for project managers and sponsors to ask the question: what problems Agile (in contrast to other approaches) are supposed to solve?
4. Are all the ‘good’ things that come with the Agile methodology (e.g. user engagement, collaboration, multi-disciplinary teams, clear communication, well-defined roles, focus on the project goal) not possible with other project management methodologies?
5. Does agile have to be the only approach or can projects have a hybrid approach where it can start with agile then switch to waterfall for instance?

Indeed this last question underlies the overall conclusion of the day which is that Agile is a product development lifecycle and approach for the iterative development of products (e.g. software) in collaboration with the users and, in the correct circumstances, can prove exceptionally effective. However it is not a project management approach and attempting to apply it as one demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the differences between project management and product development management – they are not the same.

The topic for the day was – Centres of Excellence – What’s working, what’s not?

The day began with an introduction from Kevin outlining some of the special considerations we all needed to adhere to as a consequence of working on this special site. (At lunchtime a historian gave some fascinating insights into their important work with demonstrations and exhibits of historic artefacts – including an opportunity to ‘touch’ the Enigma machine!). Simon from GCHQ then delivered our keynote talk. He headlined the important role GCHQ plays in our world today, powerfully making his points by referencing recent press coverage. He described the journey GCHQ has taken in developing project, programme and more recently portfolio competence. The importance of taking a determined, focused approach across time was highlighted and this stimulated all attendees to reflect on the strategies their organisations were adopting.

The second presentation was from Nicky Bloomer and Sue Mulcahy of the Office for National Statistics. They outlined the approach they had taken to develop skills and capability using the principals of: The right project, the right way with the right people. They too described a journey that required focus and determination to deliver demonstrable results. Many interesting points were made including; the importance of aligning projects to strategy, the importance of knowing what you have by creating registers of work and profiling competence of people and the essential endorsement from the ‘great and the good’ to professionalise the ‘practice’ of managing change.

Peter Shirley next described the plans for Legal and General as they look to develop their ‘centre of excellence’ (CoE) for change. Again the concept of a journey was embraced and Peter was able clearly to sign post the intentions for improving competence. He highlighted the importance of taking stock at regular intervals and powerfully illustrated some examples of lessons learnt to date! He also effectively linked to the previous presentations for information that can help him as he looks to develop the CoE.

As a precursor to the workshops, Bernard from CITI reflected on the theme of the day: ‘What’s working and what’s not’, highlighting some key areas for consideration, as for example What does success look like? and the CoE menu of potential services and prerequisites for start up. He concluded his talk by suggesting seven success factors that a CoE could /should reflect on as they develop their contribution and significance to the business.

Prior to lunch the workshop themes were described and the format for the afternoon outlined. Each member was able to select two of the four workshops to participate in.

During lunch, members were invited to participate in three surveys. The results of these surveys together with all presentation slides and workshop out puts are available to all members.
Please note: membership of the club is only gained once you have attended a meeting.
Thank you to our guest speakers, all members and a special thank you to Will, Grace and Maria from GCHQ who helped ensure the day was a great success.

Survey results

Commentary on the CofEe Club surveys – Event 34

CoE Activities

The majority of CoE activities are (correctly) carried out in most organisations. There is a bias towards ‘Project Support’ and particularly towards ‘Managing Intellectual Capital’, with less activity in ‘Managing Project People’ and ‘Portfolio Management’. There remains a clear ambition for a greater focus in these latter two areas.

There was a relatively small (below 20%) but fairly consistent response for activities that are regarded as (correctly) not carried out by the CoE in areas ‘Project Support’ and ‘Portfolio Management’. Given either the value proposition represented by the activities (e.g. Business case funding and approval) or the imperative to perform the activity (e.g. Selection, hiring, promotion, termination), it is likely that some other body carries this out in an effective manner, and so it is not a legitimate area of activity for the CoE. ‘Managing Project People’ and ‘Managing Intellectual Capital’ appear to be areas where the CoE is the only organisational structure that takes action.
Two activities in particular, both in ‘Portfolio Management’, were selected as being not performed but desirable. These were ‘Matching people to projects and key resource utilisation’ and ‘Rescue measures’, with >60% of responses in each case.

There were only three “we-do-this-but-we-shouldn’t” responses: one each for ‘Post-Implementation Reviews’, ‘Rescue measures’ and ‘Implementation planning’. It would be very interesting to gain further insight into the background to these responses.

CoE benefits.

For each of the eight activity areas, a significant minority of four to six respondents (and possibly the same respondents in each case) stated that their organisation has not established the activity.

Similarly, a significant proportion (58% – 82%) of respondents acknowledge that while each activity takes place in their organisation, it is not fully embedded. ‘Measurable improvement in project capability over time’ and ‘Regular innovation in project practice’ had no respondents stating that these are normal practice. It is true that the former is recognised as being difficult to measure (since project outputs are only one of a number of influences on project outcomes), while the latter is often subject to governance arrangements that change to constrain and control activity rather than encourage innovation. But no organisation is doing either these as the normal course of events.

Three of the activities – ‘Standards compliance’, ‘Portfolio level cost control’ and ‘Project and portfolio visibility and oversight’ have similar distinctive patterns, with a clear gap between the non-implementers and the partial implementers, with a reasonable proportion (17% – 22%) of responses indicating embedded processes. The other activity with >15% embedding, ‘Measurably improved business outcomes over time’ is likely to be a result of benefits management activity becoming part of operational activity.

CoE archetypes

Although this was presented as a triangular graphic, there were no responses along the ‘Service’ – ‘Partnership’ axis, indicating that the archetypes are linear in their relationship:

‘Service’ – ‘Control’ – ‘Partnership’

A comfortable majority of responses (64%) were along the ‘Control’ – ‘Partnership’ axis, with – interestingly – no responses selecting ‘pure’ ‘Control’. Two respondents selected ‘pure’ ‘Service’.
In terms of the value that the CoE represents, it is clear that ‘Service’ >> ‘Partnership’ represents an increasing contribution: given that it also represents increasing investment, the value proposition appears to be attractive to those who are committing investment to CoE activity. This may be a persuasive argument for those whose ambition is to migrate further away from ‘Service’ towards ‘Control’.

There is an unstated assumption that ‘Partnership’ CoEs still carry out relevant ‘Control’ and ‘Service’ activities, while ‘Control’ CoEs also carry out relevant ‘Service’ activities.

Workshop sessions

Four themes were set to frame discussions between club members. Groups were self directed and generated flipchart output which was summarised in plenary session. The themes and outputs generated are summarised below.

Theme A: the project community’s perspective

What are the essential behaviours that we need to see from the project community in order to support the Centre of Excellence?

The project community must have / be … (Significant behaviours marked with ‘#’)

• Respectful #
• Professional #
• Teachable
• Ready to share #
• Supportive #
• Empathetic #
• Collaborative #
• Honest #
• Anti bullying #
• Outcome focused
• Pragmatic and flexible
• Willing to ‘give back’
• Wanting to leave a legacy
• Wanting to be there
• Consistent #
• Resilient #
• Credible #
• Comfortable living with uncertainty #
• A belief that the community are professionals #

How are the behaviours to be embedded?

• Reward and recognition
• Role models established
• People ‘walk the walk’
• Active coaching – coach and be coached
• Ownership of the community
• CPD (with qualifications?)
• Hold regular forums
• Tailor approaches for projects – not one size fits all

A clear message from these work groups was the need for collective ownership. i.e. everyone needs to play their part!

Theme B: Engaging the business

What are the practical ways the business can engage with the project community and the CoE in order to make it succeed?

• Widespread engagement
• Bottom up and top down support
• Variety of communication channels used
• Encouragement from all
• Support tailored approaches
• Give the CoE time to develop
• Address scepticism
• Manage expectations
• Be realistic
• Multiple senior stakeholders/champions from across the business
• A ‘no blame culture’ with implicit trust
• Be demanding of the CoE
• Recognise and trust the ‘professionals’
• Understand that the business has to contribute to project success
• Make time for projects
• Be flexible with resources
• Release people for training
• Allow the CoE to lead the way

Both teams stressed the need to ensure there is true engagement and that project working is not seen as an ‘add on’ to business working.

Theme C: lessons learned

What positive experiences can we share from experience with CoEs?

• Use the term ‘CoE’ with caution – become excellent by reputation not title!
• Invest in people (First)
• Address capability gaps
• Get senior stakeholder buy-in and advocacy
• Keep advertising the benefits and improvements seen
• Instil professionalism and pride
• Become a community people want to belong to
• Be as independent as possible
• Create agreed standards and define competence sets
• Start skills development early
• Focus on what matters
• Have achievable targets
• Reporting lines matter i.e. sufficient voice and organisational power
• Senior roles are important and the behaviours of seniors matter

This was the least populated of the themes. Did fewest attendees suggest not many positive lessons learnt in the implication of CoEs?

Theme D: The characteristics of your CoE

The CITI presentation introduced a model to describe different types of CoEs. What are the distinguishing characteristics of each archetype?

The model introduced in the presentation (See Bernard’s slides) and made available for the work groups was seen as a useful organiser and suggested characteristics were accepted/agreed. Additional comments made included:

• Archetype depends on maturity of the organisation
• CoE should under promise and over deliver
• Project management seen as a profession is important
• It was suggested that public and private companies are very different cultures that have an effect on the development of the CoE
• Innovation (social media) is facilitating the creation of virtual teams.

 
There was a great deal of energy in all work groups with individuals freely exchanging views and opinions.

Two ‘very interesting questions’ emerged through the deliberations of the afternoon which can be summarised as:

1. Should we be referring to a ‘community’ of excellence NOT a ‘centre’ of excellence? (it is not a singularity!)
2. Should we not use the term ‘a centre of excellence’ until the title is deserved?

A member post the event recorded the following comments:-
The workshop topics were spot on and the facilitation, while light touch, did help frame the conversations in a positive way. The quality of engagement and discussion was excellent and personally, it allowed me to think through some slightly off the wall ideas with highly engaged and experienced fellow professionals. ]]> http://www.citi.co.uk/2014-cofee-club-centres-of-excellence-whats-working-whats-not/feed/ 0 http://www.citi.co.uk/2013-cofee-club-defining-achieving-and-measuring-success-in-change/ http://www.citi.co.uk/2013-cofee-club-defining-achieving-and-measuring-success-in-change/#comments Thu, 17 Oct 2013 13:38:51 +0000 http://www.citi.co.uk/?p=5386 The thirty-second meeting of CITI’s Centres of Excellence Club (CofEe Club) held on 26 September was hosted by Chris, John Lewis Partnership, London.

The topic for the day was Defining, achieving and measuring success in change.

Chris shared a short video on John Lewis Partnership’s unique history and values before speaking about their requirement to modernise the organisation in response to changing technology markets. Through collaboration and the development of change capability he was able to share the current successes that the John Lewis Partnership has currently achieved.

Some of these themes also emerged in Chris’ presentation on managing change at AWE. He described four key success factors, the measures of success at each level and how they managed to get everyone involved. Again collaboration and involving diverse groups within AWE was the key to success. Chris finished his presentation by discussing the lessons they had learnt along the way.

After a short coffee break to vote on ‘identifying the measures of success’, CITI’s CEO Christopher Worsley followed with his presentation titled ‘Success in change management’. Christopher made the case for focusing during the project on the-ten success indicators (organisations, outcomes and future direction) rather than solely focusing in short term measures of time, cost and quality.
Following Christopher’s talk attendees then formed into discussion workshop groups before breaking for lunch.

Workshops followed lunch with the day finishing off with Alex of Barclaycard describing how his organisation has established a results-tracking function, independent of projects, to measure actual benefits achieved from change initiatives. Review of benefits is embedded within the project governance framework and tracking persist for up to 24 months after project completion. This outcomes-focus attracted many questions from the audience.

CITI’s consultants Nick Dobson and Bernard Murray-Gates finished with the day’s voting results which will be shared in CITI’s defining, achieving and measuring success in change whitepaper. This will be available for download on the CITI website from the 18th October.
All speaker presentations and workout session discussions have been added to CofEe Club’s private Linked-In forum, available to all members at http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=3764380&trk=hb_side_g

About the Centre of Excellence club events:

Please note: membership of the club is only gained once you have attended a meeting.
Thank you to our guest speakers Chris and Alex and a special thank you to Chris and his team for hosting a successful day. The next CofEe Club details are yet to be announced, so watch this space!

The topic for the day was Capability and Capacity

Members engaged in lively discussions on how best to develop professional change communities to meet the demands of their change portfolios.

John described the FCA’s assessment and development approach, managed through evidence gathered in their day-to-day project work. Performance improvement and newly embedded behaviours are actively tracked in a ‘learning folder’ which allows the individual to take greater control of their own development.
Next to share his experiences was Mark from a leading wealth advice firm with £4.8 billion assets under management.

In discussing the development of change capability, Mark described that an individual’s passion for learning and their approach (skills) were recognised in Towry as much more significant than qualifications. He described how the change community was developed using formal training, structured knowledge sharing and exposure to more complex projects.

Our third case study insight of the day was provided by GCHQ who described how they have developed an academy model spanning the career path of a change professional from graduate through to experienced senior change leader.

Our final presentation was delivered by Nick Dobson, CITI Principal Consultant. Nick focused on the demand side of the development equation: how the volume and nature of the change portfolio should inform the organisations development framework and academy offerings. Most organisations represented foresee increased demand, a common perception. Nick used an analysis across six organisations and around 150 projects to demonstrate that individual organisations cannot depend on industry benchmarks and simplistic calculations to determine the demand for change capability. Each organisation should make an assessment of demand based on a clear understanding of the complexity and nature of the work and tailor their development frameworks to that.

About the Centre of Excellence club events:

These are invitation-only events for people with organisational-level responsibility. They offer an opportunity to share knowledge and experiences as well as creating powerful networks across industries and organisations. Would you like to join in the debate? Contact Gabi Caldwell for more information.

Speaker presentations, survey results and workshop findings are available on the CofEe Club private Linked-In forum, available to all members.

The 32nd meeting of CofEe Club will be held on 26th September 2013 in London – make sure you hold the date!

Jane Rumsam

Head of Programme and Project Assurance

We caught up with Jane Rumsam, Head of Programme and Project Assurance and asked her about her experience of CofEe Club:

CITI: Have you attended a Centres of Excellence Club meeting before?
Jane: No, this is my first one. I had heard from my colleagues who have attended in the past but I haven’t had the time.

CITI: What attracted you to this particular session?
Jane: Well, the topic is of particular interest for me. Ensuring that the subjects remain relevant is part of the art of keeping forums like this going and CofEe Club has managed to find that mix over the years..

CITI: Why do you believe CofEe Club is worth a day of your time?
Jane: It’s a number of things, I think. First, as you say yourselves, it offers a powerful networking opportunity. The event has the right people attending and it’s good to see some familiar faces. It’s also a nice opportunity to learn for each other and helps avoid reinventing the wheel. Personally, I also find it helpful to share stories with other people.

CITI: What key insights will you take home with you?
Jane: That everyone has the same issues. There are so many people facing the same challenges and it’s fascinating to learn of their responses. After all, it’s not rocket science – the challenge is often just to get senior level buy-in.

CITI: If you had to convince someone else to go – what would you say?
Jane: I would say that there is a good public/private sector mix and also a good variety of expertise and experience to learn from.

The twenty-eighth meeting of the Centres of Excellence Club (CofEe Club) will be hosted by BAA, at their offices in Heathrow on the 26th October 2012.

The topic for the day is Change assurance.

It was as long ago as 1513 that Machiavelli pointed out that achieving change is an inherently risky business.

Corporations’ and, in particular, senior management’s response to this recognition of the generic risks of change, is to ask the question, “If we are putting our hard-earned investment funds in harm’s way, how do we ensure we have an acceptable risk profile?” The less than satisfactory response to this perfectly reasonable question is, as often as not, to plunge headlong into activities of governance, assurance and compliance. Confused and muddled thinking about the relationships and roles of governance, assurance and compliance typically leads to heavy-duty processes, high levels of cost, slow delivery, considerable frustration, and ineffective risk management.

In this twenty-eighth CofEe Club event, we will demystify the role of, and routes to, effective change assurance.

We will uncover, through key-speakers and interactive workshops the three major themes of:

• The value of separating assurance from compliance
• Right-sizing assurance

What to assure. This will mean exploring, in workouts, the central concepts of:

• Differentiating authorisation from approval
• Understanding cost of failure
• Appropriate division of accountability from responsibility
• Understanding drivers for, and types of assurance against, the governance, executive and technical (GET) organiser.

CofEe Club is an invitation-only, membership-based network of like-minded professionals with responsibility for change, projects, programmes and portfolios in their organisations. Each quarter, a member organisation hosts a workshop at which a current hot topic is discussed, and experiences and concerns are shared.

If you are interested in becoming a member please email Amanda Muscat at amuscat@citi.co.uk.

Most organisations sit with a challenge: they are constantly under pressure to change – either to become more competitive or to become more efficient – but to do this with diminishing resources. A consequence is that selecting the change portfolio of projects and programmes is becoming a critical activity.

What is clear is those organisations who are or become successful at selecting near optimum, balanced portfolios will win the day. However, this typically will require the senior management to adopt much greater accountability for the assessment and governance of change, as well as providing leadership that will enable successful change to materialise, time after time.

In the twenty-seventh meeting of CofEe Club, CofEe Club members discussed prioritisation of the change portfolio.

Two case studies were presented by members of CofEe Club, and key insights led by a CITI expert formed the basis for members to join one or more of the breakout groups that explored:

What is the most effective prioritisation scheme?
How is a potential portfolio reduced to the ‘best’ portfolio?
What are the factors that should drive balancing a portfolio?
Where should accountabilities for success sit in portfolio governance
CofEe Club is an invitation-only, membership-based network of like-minded professionals with responsibility for change, projects, programmes and portfolios in their organisations. Each quarter, a member organisation hosts a workshop at which a current hot topic is discussed, and experiences and concerns are shared.

If you are interested in becoming a member please email Amanda Muscat at amuscat@citi.co.uk.

The topic for the meeting was Sponsorship of managed change.

Active and visible executive sponsorship has been identified as the top contributor to change success, while ineffective change sponsorship from senior leaders is seen to be the biggest obstacle to success. In significant change initiatives that stretch across organisations, sponsorship does not typically sit with one person but is allocated, possibly on a temporary basis, to local managers who are closer to the ‘action’. In fact, we know that successful change initiatives employ different types of sponsors who perform specific roles.

This session looked at the role of sponsors in the governance and execution of change initiatives and the behaviours, organisational structures and approaches that have proved successful.

Two case studies were presented by members of CofEe Club and an analysis of change sponsorship led by a CITI expert formed the basis for members to join one or more of the breakout groups that explored:

• On-boarding the Board
• The value and role of the catalyst sponsor, the executive who will have the ultimate authority for the change
• The value and role of the enabling sponsor, the manager who leads the change in their department or division
• How to support a struggling sponsor.

CofEe Club is an invitation-only, membership-based network of like-minded professionals with responsibility for change, projects, programmes and portfolios in their organisations. Each quarter, a member organisation hosts a workshop at which a current hot topic is discussed, and experiences and concerns are shared.

If you are interested in becoming a member please email Amanda Muscat at amuscat@citi.co.uk.

The topic for the day was Translating strategy into successful change with members addressing how best to make effective strategic change.

Christopher Worsley, CofEe Club Chairman, completed the general introductions before handing over to our host who provided an insight into change and transformation within EC Harris.

Case study presentations on the topic where shared by Eurostar and Axa Insurance.

Interactive discussions and group workshop exercises took place to explore the topic.

Access to all presentations, workshop outputs and papers are available to CofEe Club members via the online forum. To register your interest in attending future CofEe Club events please contact Amanda Muscat by email amuscat@citi.co.uk or by telephoning 01908 283600

If you are interested in becoming a member please email Amanda Muscat at amuscat@citi.co.uk.